CLINTON ST. QUARTERLY By the year 2000 it is estimated that there will be enough radioactive waste in the United States to build a hour-lane highway, coast to coast. ground burial spaces for 50 to 60 years until they cool somewhat, and then move them to deeper chambers permanently. Hopefully, these blocks will not pose a health hazard for the 250,000 to 1,000,000 years it will take some of the radioactive elements to decay below the level of natural uranium ore. The French, however, in their rush to achieve energy independence, did not study the viability of the technologies they now use. Recent American studies have characterized glass as highly susceptible to reaction and leaching if exposed to ground water and high temperatures. These are the chief problems with geological disposal. Ada Sanchez, a nationally recognized speaker and columnist on nuclear issues living in Portland, says that the French glass blocks are already leaching. “ I don’t see how they could go on with their plans to dispose of the waste in the deep formations, if they can’t succeed with the first step.” In 1979, a report by an Interagency Review Group on Nuclear Waste Management concluded that ‘‘glass is by no means the best material for immobilizing wastes.” The first suggestion for disposing of wastes in geological formations came in 1951, with bedrock being the material of choice. Twenty-one years later this option was turned down. The U.S. Geological Survey feels that heat produced by the waste could create thermal expansion and contraction that could breach any containers placed in rock formations. Also, there are always some cracks through which water could flow in rock formations, and the expansion and contraction could accentuate this problem. Burial in salt beds was suggested in 1957, but it wasn’t until 10 years later that the first experiments were carried out. At that time, the military — the only producers of nuclear waste up to the 1960s — wanted to dispose of their waste where it was generated: weapons facilities in Washington, Idaho and South Carolina. They wanted to do this even though scientific reports had said that none of these sites was geologically suitable for anything but very dilute, low-level wastes. ‘‘Project Salt Vault” finally began near Lyons, Kansas, in 1967 and ended in 1969 when it was discovered that hundreds of thousands of gallons of water in a nearby underground reservoir had disappeared. In 1972 the Atomic Energy Commission learned that the Lyons site was pock-marked with old, uncapped oil exploration holes “ about like a piece of Swiss cheese.” The next experiments in salt took place in the Delaware Basin of Southeast New Mexico. There, test holes ran into large pockets of brine, pressurized by explosive, toxic gases. Other problems with salt repositories held up the development of any new disposal site. For one thing, microscopic pockets of brine, from the ancient seas that produced the salt beds, could burst due to heat from the waste, and collect around the waste containers. The highly corrosive brine could dissolve the containers and their contents, releasing wastes into the underground environment. There is a question as to whether the wastes would remain isolated in that environment. Salt beds have been altered in ways that geologists do not yet understand. In the Delaware Basin, for example, up to 50 percent of the salt has already been dissolved. Because of these and other problems, salt has lost its appeal as an attractive medium for geological disposal. While other mediums, such as granite, basalt, and clay deposits in deep ocean basins, are presently being studied, the Interagency Review Group estimates that the first adequate geological repository could be ready no sooner than 1995, if then. Despite this, the report suggests the establishment of a “ demonstration repository” in salt before 1995 — due to industry pressure, critics believe — even though it recognizes salt’s shortcomings. W. Kenneth Davis, vice president of the National Academy of Engineering and a top official of Bechtel Power Corporation, a giant of the atomic industry, upon reading the first draft of the report, wrote that the report’s “ conclusions should be changed [in the interest of] getting on with a realistic program which will enable nuclear power to move ahead exped itiously ....” Principally as a result of these and other criticisms by Davis, parts of the report were rewritten several times, including the addition of the “ demonstration repository” in salt. The Quick Fix Because geological disposal lies far in the future and the need for spent fuel disposal sites is pressing, the nuclear industry has been pushing Congress for “ quick-fix” legislation. This legislation would allow for expanded on-site storage of spent fuel, u n l ic e n sed “ d e m o n s t r a t io n ” repositories, and the creation of “ Away From Reactor” (AFR) storage facilities. These demonstration repositories and AFRs would be financed initially by assessing utilities for the wastes they bring to the site. The federal government would then assume all future costs for storing the materials. (The Senate passed a bill in July which includes these provisions and which also favors perpetual surface or near-surface storage, rather than geological depositories. These storage facilities would be replaced as they deteriorate or fail to contain the wastes. This is just the kind of “ solution” to the waste problem that Lloyd Marbet and other nuclear critics are afraid the industry will hail as an answer to the question. Committees in the House of Representatives are still trying to reach agreement on a House version of the bil. If they do, the bill could come up tea vote of the full House during the kme duck session after the November elections.) Transportation of nuclearwastes is another area of concern. Vhen the time comes to move spent fuel from reactor to storage sites, it wll be done either by rail or highway in huge, extremely heavy casks. Shodd one of these containers break beciuse of an accident, sabotage or defective casks, the results could be devastiting. Several state and local governnents have already banned shipment of radioactive wastes through ther jurisdictions, but the Departmen of Transportation (DOT) holds that these rules are not legitimate b:cause they violate the rules of intestate commerce. DOT has been trying to develop programs that tley feel provide some extra measure of protection to the public. DOTs own security plans include rout* inspections, secret travel plans, andarmed guards. How much will waste disposal cost? A Department of Energy Task Force Report in 1978 estimated that interim and final disposal will cost between $15 billion and $25 billion by the end of the century. The DOE estimates are rough and do not include costs accrued past the year 2000. Whatever the final costs, they will ulThe Earlybird Special 1.10 2 eggs, hashbrowns, toast and jam The HEC 1.10 1 hotcake, 1 egg, and coffee or tea ★ Breakfast Special 1.50 1 egg, toast, fam, coffee and juice *served all day The Stepping Stone Cafe 24th and Quimby N.W. Open Tues-Fri 6 a.m.-3p.m. Sat-Sun 7:30 a.m.-1:30 p.m. 222-1132 NOW SERVING LUNCH AND DINNER 15
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy NTc4NTAz